North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: HR 4445 Reciprocal Compensation

  • From: Bill Woodcock
  • Date: Thu Sep 14 12:12:33 2000

    > Real CLECs -- those that try to serve a broad based market, rather than
    > hack togethor a contrived market that will result in a high ration o
    > finbound to outbound calls, will do fine in the absence of reciprocal
    > compensation.  

Excuse me, but why should ILECs receive a free premium for calls to ISPs
that happen to be CLECs, or to the CLECs that serve them?  Reciprocal
compensation wasn't a subsidy, it was a formalization of the notion that
dollars follow the direction of call progress.

IMHO, and I acknowledge that I don't actually have a stake in this since I
wouldn't touch consumer services with a really long stick, this is simply
a case of ILECs having agreed to something when they thought it would mean
an inflow of revenue, discovering that they were wrong (surprise,
surprise), and then wanting to re-write the rules.  The fact that they've
successfully propagandized surrounding the issue just makes it all the
more annoying.

Note that if this actually made sense, call recipients would be paying
their carriers just as much per-minute as call originators, just as in
the IP world, where the cash flows from both endpoints toward the peering 
session or mutual carrier at the center.  At the moment, that only happens
in the voice world when both parties are paying flat-rate.  And that's
not the case the ILECs are principally interested in, one presumes.